So, this happened at a recent tournament, where a BA opponent went first, used his scout move with his Baals and declared he was popping smoke in case I seized. Fine and dandy, in his own turn, he proceeded to shoot, again fine because he went first and I had thought smoke no longer applied, but then in his own turn he claimed a smoke cover save. The TO reviewed the rules and reluctantly agreed that, per RAW, this was allowable, though he didn't like it.

The reasoning appears to be thus: Smoke affects the opponents next shooting phase, smoke is popped in movement and cannot shoot *that* turn, but the FAQ says scout moves count as preceding turn's movement phase. Thus there is not shooting phase in the "scout" move to miss out on, and the effect does not take place until the opponents turn, leaving them free to shoot as normal in their own turn.

Now, I see the logic in this, but I feel it's basically abusing an unintended and unforseen loophole that the core rules did not foresee (as nobody anticipated AV13 battle tanks with Smoke Launchers getting Scout moves...)

It is "basically abusing an unintended and unforseen loophole that the core rules did not foresee"

as a TO I would handle it one of two ways.

#1 vehicles can not shoot whilst they have a smoke cover save.

#2 if you get the first turn popping smoke in the scout move does noting.

I am inclined to go with #1

Although it is RAW, I play it as a cost of doing business.

I blow smoke during scout move? I don't count it on the first turn if I get first turn. It is basically an insurance policy that I don't get seized against or that I don't seize.

I don't think I have ever counted it into my part of the turn, however.

DeathReaper wrote:It is "basically abusing an unintended and unforseen loophole that the core rules did not foresee"

as a TO I would handle it one of two ways.

#1 vehicles can not shoot whilst they have a smoke cover save.

#2 if you get the first turn popping smoke in the scout move does noting.

I am inclined to go with #1

This.

That's basically what I was feeling, though personally I'd lead more towards #2 myself, but I'd be fine with either way, just wanted to see if I was the only one who thought that was a wee bit too gamey or not.

The freaking FAQ says you can, and the rulebook says you can. Sorry, you can pull this nonsense.

Not sure why it's a problem, after all a close vehicle is normally a soon to be dead one.

juraigamer wrote:The freaking FAQ says you can, and the rulebook says you can. Sorry, you can pull this nonsense.

Didn't say you couldn't, just said it felt like an abuse/loophole of the rules that was never intended, just like back in 3E when people claimed Terminators technically didn't have Terminator armor since it wasn't listed in their wargear, or saying a Leman Russ can fire it's turret weapon even if stunned due to Lumbering Behemoth.

Not sure why it's a problem, after all a close vehicle is normally a soon to be dead one.

Because A: The vehicle doesn't need to be close and B: it's negating the balance mechanic trade-off that Smoke Launchers impose for their utility, allowing them to move around to get choice shots without regard to their own positioning and facing no drawback whatsoever. One will notice that Scouting Valkyries and Vendettas, while mechanically similar, cannot scout and shoot and still claim to be in cover either.

It's also not something that GW typically would allow, or that would even occur to the vast majority of players to even try.

Vaktathi wrote: Terminators technically didn't have Terminator armor since it wasn't listed in their wargear,

Chaos Space Marine Obliteratiors do not list armor in their wargear either, yet they have a 2+ armor save.

DeathReaper wrote:

Vaktathi wrote: Terminators technically didn't have Terminator armor since it wasn't listed in their wargear,

Chaos Space Marine Obliteratiors do not list armor in their wargear either, yet they have a 2+ armor save.

Right, but Oblits don't actually have Terminator armor either, they just have pretty much every special rule that goes along with it given to them separately. 3E Terminators also had their 2+sv, but without Terminator Armor listed as a wargear item people would argue that they then didn't get the other benefits attendant as well (e.g. 5+ invul, etc).

Remember SOB immolaters with a squad of dominions can do the same trick. (its quite useful)

i think IG with creed on like a chimera or something could do the same thing

Vaktathi wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Vaktathi wrote: Terminators technically didn't have Terminator armor since it wasn't listed in their wargear,

Chaos Space Marine Obliteratiors do not list armor in their wargear either, yet they have a 2+ armor save.

Right, but Oblits don't actually have Terminator armor either, they just have pretty much every special rule that goes along with it given to them separately. 3E Terminators also had their 2+sv, but without Terminator Armor listed as a wargear item people would argue that they then didn't get the other benefits attendant as well (e.g. 5+ invul, etc).

Obliterators get some benefits of terminator armor, relentless, deepstrike, 5+, but I don't think they can use teleport homers? (icons)

Chaos terminators are another story in that they aren't really relentless. They get some of the special rules of relentless like assaulting after shooting, but I believe can not always fire their bolters as if stationary, so no move and shoot 24".

Vaktathi wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Vaktathi wrote: Terminators technically didn't have Terminator armor since it wasn't listed in their wargear,

Chaos Space Marine Obliteratiors do not list armor in their wargear either, yet they have a 2+ armor save.

Right, but Oblits don't actually have Terminator armor either, they just have pretty much every special rule that goes along with it given to them separately. 3E Terminators also had their 2+sv, but without Terminator Armor listed as a wargear item people would argue that they then didn't get the other benefits attendant as well (e.g. 5+ invul, etc).

So where is the 2+ save coming from? Artificer armor LOL!

DeathReaper wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Vaktathi wrote: Terminators technically didn't have Terminator armor since it wasn't listed in their wargear,

Chaos Space Marine Obliteratiors do not list armor in their wargear either, yet they have a 2+ armor save.

Right, but Oblits don't actually have Terminator armor either, they just have pretty much every special rule that goes along with it given to them separately. 3E Terminators also had their 2+sv, but without Terminator Armor listed as a wargear item people would argue that they then didn't get the other benefits attendant as well (e.g. 5+ invul, etc).

So where is the 2+ save coming from? Artificer armor LOL!

The statline.

There's no requirement for wargear to be present to modify a statline.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Vaktathi wrote: Terminators technically didn't have Terminator armor since it wasn't listed in their wargear,

Chaos Space Marine Obliteratiors do not list armor in their wargear either, yet they have a 2+ armor save.

Right, but Oblits don't actually have Terminator armor either, they just have pretty much every special rule that goes along with it given to them separately. 3E Terminators also had their 2+sv, but without Terminator Armor listed as a wargear item people would argue that they then didn't get the other benefits attendant as well (e.g. 5+ invul, etc).

So where is the 2+ save coming from? Artificer armor LOL!

The statline.

There's no requirement for wargear to be present to modify a statline.

QFT

Agreed, Heck, technically, only Harlequins, Warlocks, and Farseers have armour in the Eldar codex, and it doesn't even provide an armour save.

Vaktathi wrote: Didn't say you couldn't, just said it felt like an abuse/loophole of the rules that was never intended,

I know man, I'm just saying what the books say. Wound allocation tricks are abuse/loopholes, and there are many others that people use as part of standard play. Doing the scout smoke trick is just one other thing.

rigeld2 wrote:The statline.

There's no requirement for wargear to be present to modify a statline.

So going by that you could model naked Oblits with a 2+ armor save?

The statline represents the model.

The wargear tells us what weapons and armor the models have.

Oblits have no armor, yet they have an armor save.

Not sure why they did not list armor for the Oblits, as plague Marines and others have power armor listed in their entries.

It honestly never occurred to me that obliterators were in terminator armour.

I always just assumed it was crazy metal demon armour hybrid mojo that gave them their saves etc...

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The statline.

There's no requirement for wargear to be present to modify a statline.

So going by that you could model naked Oblits with a 2+ armor save?

Sure. Why not?

The statline represents the model.

The statline or Characteristic Profile has nothing to do with wargear.

The wargear tells us what weapons and armor the models have

Correct. And neither have anything to do with the statline.

Not sure why they did not list armor for the Oblits, as plague Marines and others have power armor listed in their entries.

No idea. Doesn't really matter though - the power armor listing is irrelevant anyway.

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The statline.

There's no requirement for wargear to be present to modify a statline.

So going by that you could model naked Oblits with a 2+ armor save?

They could be slaanesh worshippers?

rigeld2 wrote:The statline or Characteristic Profile has nothing to do with wargear.

With the Caveat that the armor save, on a CSM, comes from something outside the model, while the other characteristics are intrinsic to the model itself.

Since the Model is a representation of an actual Chaos Space Marine if we believe the fluff.

These guys are running around somewhere in a galaxy far far away...

Also if you read P.7 under Armor Save, it tells us that most creatures have an armor save based on what kind of armor they are wearing. Which is surely the case for Space Marines.

juraigamer wrote:The freaking FAQ says you can, and the rulebook says you can. Sorry, you can pull this nonsense.

Not sure why it's a problem, after all a close vehicle is normally a soon to be dead one.

Neither of them explicitly state that you can still shoot in your own turn if you've popped smoke during scout, don't make things up.
I'd be inclined to say that vehicles can't shoot while smoke is "popped".

You can use smoke launchers in your Scout move, that's fine. However...

Main rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: During the first turn of the game does a Scout move count as the preceding Movement phase when working out any saves from shooting, for example the 3+ cover save from turbo-boosting, and the to hit rolls in combat against vehicles? (p76)
A: Yes.

There's a pretty good basis there for saying that since that scout move counts as the preceding movement movement phase during the first game turn, if the BA player goes first, the fact that he has (functionally) popped smoke in his preceding movement phase would preclude him from shooting in the first turn with that vehicle.

DeathReaper wrote:It is "basically abusing an unintended and unforseen loophole that the core rules did not foresee"

as a TO I would handle it one of two ways.

#1 vehicles can not shoot whilst they have a smoke cover save.

#2 if you get the first turn popping smoke in the scout move does noting.

#3 Show TFG the exit and ban him from all future events for being a tool.

I am inclined to go with #1

Fixed that for you.

I'm inclined to go with #3

In our group we used the #2 by DeathReaper.
So if BA player has first turn, popping smoke does nothing.
If he goes second, he gains one turn of 4+ cover save for no side effects.

This is completely acceptable for us, because it is comparable to flat-out or turb-boost scout move.

Yes, we know by RAW it should give only advantages...

As pointed out, while this is fine in the rules, the only thing definitively allowing the use of smoke launchers during scout also tells you it counts as the preceding movement phase - meaning that, if you go first, you have 2 back to back movement phases (functionally) and you HAVE popped smoke in the preceding movement phase, meaning you cannot shoot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:the only thing definitively allowing the use of smoke launchers during scout also tells you it counts as the preceding movement phase - meaning that, if you go first, you have 2 back to back movement phases (functionally) and you HAVE popped smoke in the preceding movement phase, meaning you cannot shoot.

RAW you popped smoke in the movement phase before your preceding movement phase, not in your preceding movement phase. If you wanted to interpret it that a movement phase in what the FAQ tells us is considered a seperate turn is counted as a movement phase in the next turn then if you pop smoke in turn 1 I can claim you cannot fire for the rest of the game as you popped smoke in a preceding movement phase.

RAI - no you probably shouldn't do this, it'll be frowned upon in a casual game. RAW - perfectly legal

This is YMDC right? the RAW is clear. How you play it is something entirely different.

Mannahnin wrote:You can use smoke launchers in your Scout move, that's fine. However...

Main rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: During the first turn of the game does a Scout move count as the preceding Movement phase when working out any saves from shooting, for example the 3+ cover save from turbo-boosting, and the to hit rolls in combat against vehicles? (p76)
A: Yes.

There's a pretty good basis there for saying that since that scout move counts as the preceding movement movement phase during the first game turn, if the BA player goes first, the fact that he has (functionally) popped smoke in his preceding movement phase would preclude him from shooting in the first turn with that vehicle.

Smoke says you can not fire in that turn. the Scout Turn. As that is the Preceding movement phase. now Game turn 1 if your opponent goes first you get a 4+ cover save all hunky dory. but if you go first there is no Restriction to you moving and firing in your first Game turn. And as the Wording in Smoke say it stays in effect till the end of your opponents shooting phase, you still have your 4+ cover save.

Also the BA player (or SOB) did not Pop smoke in there Preceding movement phase of Game turn one. they popped smoke in the Scout turn.(phase) which then lifts all restriction of firing when it becomes there turn 1. the FAQ clearly states the scout phase as the preceding phase and you can not shoot that turn. next phase is movement and you have not popped smoke which will not preclude you to the restriction of not firing. (even though you are under the effects of it due to Smoke Launchers wording)

this is RAW not RAI

Compel wrote:It honestly never occurred to me that obliterators were in terminator armour.

I always just assumed it was crazy metal demon armour hybrid mojo that gave them their saves etc...

If memory serves mem correct... Obliterators in the former Chaos Codex has the Demonic Armor which was a demonic gift, Slow and purposeful Rule, and the Demonic Aura also a demonic gift which granted them the 2+/5+ save, along with the ability to fire on the move. They never had terminator armor at any point in the past.

Joey wrote:

juraigamer wrote:The freaking FAQ says you can, and the rulebook says you can. Sorry, you can pull this nonsense.

Not sure why it's a problem, after all a close vehicle is normally a soon to be dead one.

Neither of them explicitly state that you can still shoot in your own turn if you've popped smoke during scout, don't make things up.
I'd be inclined to say that vehicles can't shoot while smoke is "popped".

The rulebook says you can't shoot the turn you pop smoke, and scout moves is a different turn than first turn. Not said, implies.

It's still a manner thing to do, but the book says so, and if I was a BA assault army playing against GK, I'd take everything I could get.

Sportsmanship scores are for things like this.

Lol really sportsmen scores? I think they are there to make poor sports not win.

Low sportsman ship scores tend to come from the guy who lost.

Not really, it is from the guy who did not enjoy the game. If you enjoyed the game then you dont give low sportsmanship scores. Only a person who is vindictive would give low sportsmanship scores. However if I was playing, even if it didn't matter and he failed all his cover saves this type of rules exploit would really leave a bad taste in my mouth for the rest of the game. Especially since it is the first encounter with this guy that I will most likely have had.

Hell I have given low sportsman ship scores when I win, because it was not a fun person to play against.

[quote=Leth
Hell I have given low sportsman ship scores when I win, because it was not a fun person to play against.

I've been doing this with my sisters - I had it done to me early on, learned the trick and never realized it was controversial. It seems a little odd that you get cover and shooting if you go second but not if you go first, but I see how firing while smoked is equally weird. I just always assumed it was an accepted exploit, like wound allocation shenanigans and the like. I'll have to consider whether or not to use it in the future.

It's not controvertial. It's 100% RAW, People just feel upset when they face something they were not prepared for. Something like fear of the unknown. Me I tell my opponent what I am doing before the game giving them the varied applicable rules so they are not surprised. That way they can adjust (or not).

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:It's not controvertial. People just feel upset when they face something they were not prepared for. Something like fear of the unknown.

No it's called being gamey and exploiting something that the original rules were not built for. Many people would not accept this exploit in a "friendly" game.

Joey wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:It's not controvertial. People just feel upset when they face something they were not prepared for. Something like fear of the unknown.

No it's called being gamey and exploiting something that the original rules were not built for. Many people would not accept this exploit in a "friendly" game.

When I pull out my sisters they have no complaints mainly due to the fact they think they are horrid. (i disagree by winning. )

FAQ 1.5 says a Scout move counts as the preceding Movement phase not turn. You have to give it to GW as the wording is quite clever "counts as preceding movement phase" and not previous movement Turn means the scouting unit gets an extra movement phase at the start of THAT turn. This keeps it in the same game turn for the cover effect to work without having to rewrite the rules to allow for a turn before turn 1. There is no turn before turn 1 so this is how GW fixed popping smoke and scouting vehicles. RAW in FAQ 1.5 does not allow this IMHO.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:It's not controvertial. It's 100% RAW, People just feel upset when they face something they were not prepared for. Something like fear of the unknown. Me I tell my opponent what I am doing before the game giving them the varied applicable rules so they are not surprised. That way they can adjust (or not).

It isnt RAW, for the reasons given. "Preceding movement phase" means that you HAVE popped smoke in the preceding movement phase, so may not shoot - its just there were two movement phases, meaning you are allowed to shoot and disallowed from shooting, and "cannot" trumps "may"

juraigamer wrote:

Vaktathi wrote: Didn't say you couldn't, just said it felt like an abuse/loophole of the rules that was never intended,

I know man, I'm just saying what the books say. Wound allocation tricks are abuse/loopholes, and there are many others that people use as part of standard play. Doing the scout smoke trick is just one other thing.

Doesn't say I cannot punch my opponent in the face and steal his miniatures or use loaded dice.

He cannot have it both ways - either he gets insurance smoke, 1st turn smoke or can shoot, not all three

nosferatu1001 wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:It's not controvertial. It's 100% RAW, People just feel upset when they face something they were not prepared for. Something like fear of the unknown. Me I tell my opponent what I am doing before the game giving them the varied applicable rules so they are not surprised. That way they can adjust (or not).

It isnt RAW, for the reasons given. "Preceding movement phase" means that you HAVE popped smoke in the preceding movement phase, so may not shoot - its just there were two movement phases, meaning you are allowed to shoot and disallowed from shooting, and "cannot" trumps "may"

In the FAQ "preceding movement phase" obviously means "previous movement phase" as it refers to Turbo-boosters which gain cover for the following enemy shooting phase. But do take into account that Smoke Launchers don't actually refer to movement phase at all.

"The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save." (Brb, pg 62, Smoke Launchers, emphasis mine)

But as we're talking about Smoke Launchers, real question is: Are Scout moves done on Player Turn 1 (and thus Game Turn 1) or not. Answer is simple: No.

"Deploy any infiltrators and make any scout moves. Start the game! Once deployment has finished, the player that chose his deployment zone first starts game Turn 1 with his first player turn." (Brb pg 92, Pitched battle)
All other deployment options exactly same language stating that game Turn 1 begins only after deployment, including scout moves.

Because Scout moves are not done on Turn 1, by RAW there is no penalty for using Smoke Launchers during Scout move. You will not lose a turn of firing even if you have first turn (same as flat out skimmers and turbo boosting bikes) and the vehicle will count obscured no matter who goes first.

Our group doesn't play it like this though, but it is RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:

juraigamer wrote:

Vaktathi wrote: Didn't say you couldn't, just said it felt like an abuse/loophole of the rules that was never intended,

I know man, I'm just saying what the books say. Wound allocation tricks are abuse/loopholes, and there are many others that people use as part of standard play. Doing the scout smoke trick is just one other thing.

Doesn't say I cannot punch my opponent in the face and steal his miniatures or use loaded dice.

He cannot have it both ways - either he gets insurance smoke, 1st turn smoke or can shoot, not all three

Unfortunately, by RAW he gets all three. See my previous post why.

http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/09/rulings-baal-predators-smoke-launchers-and-scout-moves/#more-583 food for thought.

Joey wrote:No it's called being gamey and exploiting something that the original rules were not built for. Many people would not accept this exploit in a "friendly" game.

Then simply play in friendly games. Just like I refuse to play in tournaments that follow the inat faq, one of the worst pieces of their own version of rules lawyering in the 40k universe.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:It's not controvertial. It's 100% RAW

That' doesn't always make it necessarily correct, what was intended, or what anyone wants to play against. RAW isn't always the way the game is meant to be played (again, as in 3E, Terminators not actually having Terminator armor by RAW), GW itself has said so. It's plainly obvious GW didn't intend vehicles to be able to claim the cover save and still shoot. Bypassing such a thing with a RAW loophole is what gets you dinged on Sports. If you ever have to fall back on "but it's RAAAAAW", you're having a sports issue. Using an FAQ loophole that was intended to allow movement-phase abilities to function in scout moves to side-stop that isn't likely what GW intended or how they would want people to play that. Yes, it's RAW, but not really GAP, it's not something most people would pick up on without having read it on an internet forum.


That whole "fear of the unknown" thing is silly, there's "I didn't know that" and then there are "loopholes". It's one thing to run up against an ability you've never seen before. "Wow, I didn't realize that Ravagers could move 12" and fire all 3 Darklances with their Aerial Assault Rule!" It's another when it's a loophole. "Wait...you're trying to claim a cover save in *my* turn after you popped smoke in a Scout move and then shot in your own turn? You're applying an FAQ to two different rules to sidestep a balancing mechanism by RAW?"


One will notice that moving Flat Out for skimmers or Turboboosting for bikes does not let them get the cover save and shoot. Similar mechanics meant to do the same thing but worded slightly differently (because GW can't write consistent rules) and this was not possible at the time either the rulebook or the BA book was released. Given how little playtesting GW typically does, and how close to the next edition these things came together, it's likely they simply never noticed it until later and said "well, it's gone in a few months".

So yes, by RAW by all accounts is possible. Most people won't do it however. I've only come across the one BA player that tried it, none of the others thought it was on the level, just as most IG players don't try to find ways to abuse the Lumbering Behemoth Leman Russ rule.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/09/rulings-baal-predators-smoke-launchers-and-scout-moves/#more-583 food for thought.

A good writeup, but ignores precedent, intent, and simply takes it on the FAQ, Scout and Smoke rules without taking anything else into account (such as similar/equivalent abilities) as a court would.

Luide - it counts as the preceding movement phase, which must be the same player turn.

It in time happens before turn 1, but according to the rules counts as turn 1

...so since its a "different turn" how do you gain a smoke save still? Shouldn't it have been: "if you take your shots, you don't get smoke save"? That's the rule and the rule guy botched the call if you ask me...

Dagger wrote:...so since its a "different turn" how do you gain a smoke save still? Shouldn't it have been: "if you take your shots, you don't get smoke save"? That's the rule and the rule guy botched the call if you ask me...

If you popped smoke in the preceding movement phase you cannot shoot.

When you pop smoke, you count as obscured during the enemy's next shooting phase.

Vaktathi wrote:
One will notice that moving Flat Out for skimmers or Turboboosting for bikes does not let them get the cover save and shoot. Similar mechanics meant to do the same thing but worded slightly differently (because GW can't write consistent rules) and this was not possible at the time either the rulebook or the BA book was released. Given how little playtesting GW typically does, and how close to the next edition these things came together, it's likely they simply never noticed it until later and said "well, it's gone in a few months".

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/09/rulings-baal-predators-smoke-launchers-and-scout-moves/#more-583 food for thought.

A good writeup, but ignores precedent, intent, and simply takes it on the FAQ, Scout and Smoke rules without taking anything else into account (such as similar/equivalent abilities) as a court would.

Incorrect. Bikes have been able to turbo boost during the scout phase and then move, shoot and assault in their first turn and still get a 3+ coversave for turbo boosting in the enemy shooting phase since the very start of 5th Edition by RAW, and this was further endorsed by the FAQ in question, which states the scout move does count as a preceding movement phase, clearing up even that argument. Smoke launchers use the same wording as turbo boosting, ie if (Action) occurs you get (x) coversave in the following enemy shooting phase. Flat out is worded differently and as such, acts differently. Why have they not changed the turbo boost rules in the 4 years we've had 5th edition if this was incorrectly written? where is the FAQ advising you cannot do this? maybe this was how they are supposed to work and it is the flat out rule that is worded incorrectly, and does not function as intended?

The write up does not specifically mention precedent, but it is there in the case of turbo boosting scouts. intent of the author cannot be easily identified without GW answering one way or the other, but as there is no FAQ nerfing this idea, and the difference in wording between smoke launchers and flat out, and the similiarities with turboboosting, then it can certainly argued that there is the intention they are to work in a similar fashion to turboboosting. of course GW themselves do not even follow their own precedents so its all a bit iffy about the intent.

However in cases like this GW tell us to follow the Rules As Written, which clearly allow this.

I don't have my rulebook in front of me right now to look up the bike issue, but I can't recall ever having seen or heard of anyone in 4 years at any event or battle report trying to claim a cover save in an opponents first turn shooting phase if they turbo boosted in a scout move,went first and didn't turbo-boost in their own turn and instead shot/assaulted something.

The reason it works with Turbo-boost is due to the wording: "In the following enemy Shooting phase, the bike benefits from a cover save...".

It does not work for Flat-out because that specifies it has to have moved flat-out in it's last Movement phase. to gain the cover benefits.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Luide - it counts as the preceding movement phase, which must be the same player turn.
It in time happens before turn 1, but according to the rules counts as turn 1

There is one huge problem in that interpretation.
If a vehicle did flat-out scout move, during Turn 1a it cannot cannot shoot nor can its passengers disembark. Not even if it stayed stationary.
I mean, if "preceding movement phase" counts as Turn 1a movement phase, then that vehicle count as having moved flat out during Turn 1a movement phase and all normal restrictions apply.

If you take the the literal interpretation of "preceding" meaning "previous" as like following:
1) Turn 1a Movement phase. Scout moves are considered to have happened in movement phase preceding this one at this point.
2) Turn 1a Shooting phase. At this point, scout moves are considered to have happened AFTER Turn 1a Movement phase (because they count as previous movement phase). So if you moved flat-out during scout move, you cannot shoot. If you stayed stationary during scout move, you can shoot all guns even if you moved flat out during the movement phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Luide - it counts as the preceding movement phase, which must be the same player turn.

It in time happens before turn 1, but according to the rules counts as turn 1

After both sides have deployed (including infiltrators), but before the first player begins his first turn, any scouts may make a normal move. This is done exactly as in their Movement phase, except that during this move, scouts must remain more than 12″ away from any enemy.” BGB p. 76


This to me means that it is before either players turn.

Note the las sentence? THats what I covered

You are ignoring the FAQ, which states it counts as the preceding movement phase.

Luide - note the FAQ only counts Scout as the preceding movement phase; this has no effect on your current movement phase as that has NO requirements relted to other movements - it is all written in relation to that movement phase, nothing else.

Such fun. My favourite is the people who are clearly psychic, and can tell how the designers, usually on the other side of an ocean, 'intended' the game to be played. Fantastic stuff.

The rules for Smoke Launchers clearly, and I MEAN clearly, state that you cannot shoot if you smoked THAT movement phase. Since there is a Movement Phase inbetween, you get the save.

The only controversy here is from people who don't agree with the rule trying to impose their view on others, and ignoring RaW.

Dislike if it you want, cool. I dislike Shunt Punches being illegal, and Codex: Daemons special deployment rules. I don't willy-nilly ignore or change rules that don't work for me.

I'm also not enough of a jerk that I'd refuse to play people because they do something the rules clearly allow them to do...

Final point - As Pug stated, this is something Bikes and Smoke-able vehicles have been able to do since 5th came out, though I can't think of one with that capacity at the time (Dark Angels not being able to Turbo Boost in their Scout moves) - and it has CERTAINLY been the case since the Imperial Guard Codex (the second of this Edition, remember.)

If it hasn't been EXPRESSLY vetoed, in that ENTIRE time, perhaps your passive-aggressive 'rawr it's an exploit' posturing is simply that, and not what the team at GWHQ agree with...

Vaktathi wrote:A good writeup, but ignores precedent, intent, and simply takes it on the FAQ, Scout and Smoke rules without taking anything else into account (such as similar/equivalent abilities) as a court would.

But completely fits the tenant of you make da call.

We don't use precedent. It's not being argued in a court of law. It's being argued in 'you make da call'.

Per RAW, it works. End of story.

You want to argue to change it? Go call GW.

By the way, I'm with you on this. I don't like this at all. But as far as the purpose of this board is, it's a correct ruling.

Actually we do use precedent. But yes, it's RAW.

So are you agreeing that it is an 'extra' movement preceeding the normal phases of Turn 1 (which is how I read FAQ 1.5) or that it is in fact a Turn 0?

The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

You keep assuming that people arguing RAW also play that way.
Don't do that. It's an extremely bad assumption.

pucadubh wrote:So are you agreeing that it is an 'extra' movement preceeding the normal phases of Turn 1 (which is how I read FAQ 1.5) or that it is in fact a Turn 0?

It being a Movement Phase or not is irrelevant. It's not a turn.

Smoke Launchers state

The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers

It didn't use them in Turn One, therefore it may shoot in Turn One.

As I said, this has existed since Stormtroopers in the Imperial Guard Codex, and Scout Sentinels (and Creeeeeed!) - so for it to have never been prevented is a damning indictment of fallacious 'intent' arguments.

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

Actually, my gaming group doesn't tolerate people saying that they don't want to play by the rules in a way that indicates their way is the 'better' way to play.

rigeld2 wrote:

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

You keep assuming that people arguing RAW also play that way.
Don't do that. It's an extremely bad assumption.

That's fair enough. Not everyone who points out a loophole uses it.

Elessar wrote:

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

Actually, my gaming group doesn't tolerate people saying that they don't want to play by the rules in a way that indicates their way is the 'better' way to play.

If your gaming group lets you pop smoke then shoot and claim a 4+ cover save, they're tools.

Of course they do, as I them. It's called The Rules.

It isn't my fault if you lack the ability or desire to play the game according to the rules we are given to play it by - and that you lack the social graces that are assumed in polite company. Frankly, with an attitude like yours, I'm surprised you GET games...

Elessar wrote:Of course they do, as I them. It's called The Rules.

It isn't my fault if you lack the ability or desire to play the game according to the rules we are given to play it by - and that you lack the social graces that are assumed in polite company. Frankly, with an
attitude like yours, I'm surprised you GET games...

Yes it's in the rules. Do you even know what "loophole" means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole
"A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system."
Yes it's within the rules.
But we are not in a court of law. It's obvious what the intention of the rule is (even if you refue to acknoledge that). It's also obvious that it gives one player a massive advantage that he is not supposed to have, namely being able to pop smoke AND fire his weapons.

Except, if it were the intent of the designers, they'd have corrected it in the last four years. They haven't.

It's hardly all that big an advantage, but perhaps I play at a higher level than you and know that skilled players will be able to have Cover on an appropriately terrain-ed board virtually all the time anyway.

Joey wrote:

Elessar wrote:Of course they do, as I them. It's called The Rules.

It isn't my fault if you lack the ability or desire to play the game according to the rules we are given to play it by - and that you lack the social graces that are assumed in polite company. Frankly, with an
attitude like yours, I'm surprised you GET games...

Yes it's in the rules. Do you even know what "loophole" means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole
"A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system."
Yes it's within the rules.
But we are not in a court of law. It's obvious what the intention of the rule is (even if you refue to acknoledge that). It's also obvious that it gives one player a massive advantage that he is not supposed to have, namely being able to pop smoke AND fire his weapons.

Except there is no ambiguity. They are worded exactly like another rule, and differently to a similiar rule. The rules do exactly what they say. And as no one here can know the intent of the author, arguing intent is a waste of time.

Lorek wrote:4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

We are arguing the RAW, the RAW is clear, if you want to argue HYWPI, thats fine, but please state that is what you are doing so as to avoid confusing other people reading this thread.

Oh and Elessar - Orks have deathkoptas (sp?) jetbikes with scout since the start of 5th.

Elessar wrote:Except, if it were the intent of the designers, they'd have corrected it in the last four years. They haven't.

It's hardly all that big an advantage, but perhaps I play at a higher level than you and know that skilled players will be able to have Cover on an appropriately terrain-ed board virtually all the time anyway.

No, skilled players will grant their infantry cover 99% of the time. Vehicles are a different beast altogether.

Of course.

My apologies, I should not have forgotten a unit I've used dozens of times like a Took.

I also forgot Possessed, because they suck - but they can indeed Smoke in their Scout.

i deliberately omitted Cato Sicarius' limited tactical ability passing it onto a Tactical Squad, but no-one seems to have noticed...

Joey - it's scarcely harder to get Cover for vehicles. For Reals.

ItsPug wrote:
Except there is no ambiguity. They are worded exactly like another rule, and differently to a similiar rule. The rules do exactly what they say. And as no one here can know the intent of the author, arguing intent is a waste of time.

We can because, unlike you, we have reading comphrehension abilities.
Consider the popping smoke rule. It grants you a 4+ cover save against all attacks, in return for you sacrificing shooting. We can therefore infer that the purpose of this rule is a one-off sacrifice of shooting ability, in return for prolonged durability.
The loophole described in this thread goes against that intent, by allowing you to shoot AND claim a 4+ smoke cover save. It is therefore against the intent of the rules.
Honestly, what do they teach kids these days...

Equally then, we can infer the purpose of Psybolt Ammo is to make your guns better.

Since not being Defensive anymore is a DETRIMENT, Stormravens' Hurricane Bolters should be able to fire at Cruising Speed, as it is the Designers' "intent".

Oh, but that's horsegak. Damn.

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

You even admit that by RAW, it's the correct ruling. This is you make da call. We are not talking ethics here. Take that to general discussion since it irritates you so much.

We just play by the rules. Why do you think gw gets such a bad rep in game design?

Most of the reason GW gets a bad rep is from people not actually reading the rules properly, or not playing by them as it doesn't suit them.

The rules certainly aren't watertight, but they're a damn sight better than they get given credit for most of the time (not that that's hard...)

Elessar wrote:Equally then, we can infer the purpose of Psybolt Ammo is to make your guns better.

Since not being Defensive anymore is a DETRIMENT, Stormravens' Hurricane Bolters should be able to fire at Cruising Speed, as it is the Designers' "intent".

Oh, but that's horsegak. Damn.

What? If you want to retain hurricane bolters' defensive weapon-ness, don't take hurricane bolters.

imweasel wrote:

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

You even admit that by RAW, it's the correct ruling. This is you make da call. We are not talking ethics here. Take that to general discussion since it irritates you so much.

We just play by the rules. Why do you think gw gets such a bad rep in game design?

GW's games are just fine.
I'd be fine with you scouting your Bhaal then shooting, but I don't want you complaining when I lay all my models ont heir sides when I go to ground, and deny you LOS (also completely RAW).

Joey wrote:

Elessar wrote:Equally then, we can infer the purpose of Psybolt Ammo is to make your guns better.

Since not being Defensive anymore is a DETRIMENT, Stormravens' Hurricane Bolters should be able to fire at Cruising Speed, as it is the Designers' "intent".

Oh, but that's horsegak. Damn.

What? If you want to retain hurricane bolters' defensive weapon-ness, don't take hurricane bolters.
I'mma assume that's a typo...

imweasel wrote:

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

You even admit that by RAW, it's the correct ruling. This is you make da call. We are not talking ethics here. Take that to general discussion since it irritates you so much.

We just play by the rules. Why do you think gw gets such a bad rep in game design?

GW's games are just fine.
I'd be fine with you scouting your Bhaal then shooting, but I don't want you complaining when I lay all my models ont heir sides when I go to ground, and deny you LOS (also completely RAW).

That's fine, it "shouldn't" be in the rules, but it is. Don't be surprised when I stand at your shoulder to ensure you don't steal distance when standing the models up again.

Elessar wrote:Most of the reason GW gets a bad rep is from people not actually reading the rules properly, or not playing by them as it doesn't suit them.

The rules certainly aren't watertight, but they're a damn sight better than they get given credit for most of the time (not that that's hard...)

Really?

I think I could point to an entire forum full of posts that would disagree with that assertion. Wait, we're posting in that very forum right now.

Their FAQ's, which are supposed to help answer questions about their rules, easily cause as much consternation as the rules they are supposed to fix.

Elessar, I think it is a bit over the top when you guys are discussing loopholes to accuse Joey of being a cheater.

imweasel wrote:

Elessar wrote:Most of the reason GW gets a bad rep is from people not actually reading the rules properly, or not playing by them as it doesn't suit them.

The rules certainly aren't watertight, but they're a damn sight better than they get given credit for most of the time (not that that's hard...)

Really?

I think I could point to an entire forum full of posts that would disagree with that assertion. Wait, we're posting in that very forum right now.

Their FAQ's, which are supposed to help answer questions about their rules, easily cause as much consternation as the rules they are supposed to fix.

You know as well as I most of those question are easy to answer. Most people are idiots, there's no reason why most tabletop gamers would be different in that regard, and they aren't.

Sure, the FAQs also create new questions, but the game could be a whole hell of a lot worse. Imagine they never bothered with FAQs, just erratas, for instance.

keithb wrote:Elessar, I think it is a bit over the top when you guys are discussing loopholes to accuse Joey of being a cheater.

I did no such thing. Also, it is HE asserting it is a loophole. I'm saying that it has existed as long as the Edition, and is therefore an intended part of the system.

Joey wrote:

ItsPug wrote:
Except there is no ambiguity. They are worded exactly like another rule, and differently to a similiar rule. The rules do exactly what they say. And as no one here can know the intent of the author, arguing intent is a waste of time.

We can because, unlike you, we have reading comphrehension abilities.
Consider the popping smoke rule. It grants you a 4+ cover save against all attacks, in return for you sacrificing shooting. We can therefore infer that the purpose of this rule is a one-off sacrifice of shooting ability, in return for prolonged durability.
The loophole described in this thread goes against that intent, by allowing you to shoot AND claim a 4+ smoke cover save. It is therefore against the intent of the rules.
Honestly, what do they teach kids these days...

I lack reading comprehension abilities? I read exactly what it said, and explained exactly what it means, you are the one "inferring" what the rules actually say to mean something else.

1) Smoke launchers say you cannot shoot in the same turn that you use them (pg 62, middle to end of second paragraph)
2) Smoke launchers may be triggered after the vehicle makes a normal move, irregardless of movement speed (pg 62, start of second paragraph)
3) Scouts rule allows a vehicle to make a normal move prior to the start of the game (pg76)
4) Scout moves occur before turn 1 starts (pg 92 and 93 "make any scout moves. Start the game...begin turn 1")
5) Smoke launchers grant obscured status in the next enemy shooting phase (pg 76 last sentence, second paragraph)

Still with me? Thats all RAW, citations and all.

So point 3) allows me to use point 2) to activate smoke. Point 4) means point 1) does not stop me shooting in my first turn. Point 5) means I get a coversave in your next (which happens to be your first) shooting phase.

Hopefully that'll help with your comprehension problem, the reading problem you'll have to fix yourself.

Oh and as to what they teach kids these days? in my case it would be law. can't speak for anyone else, unlike yourself, who likes to speak as to the intent of the author(s) of a document, a person or persons, you have in all likelyhood, never even met or had contact with.

You've completely ignored what I said and simply re-iterated the loophole.
If you want to play the game like that, then that's fine. Just don't expect other people to be cool with it, and if you used it on me I'd start puling out every single gamey technically legal trick I had in order to piss you off including, as I said above, laying down units to deny line of sight.

Elessar wrote:

keithb wrote:Elessar, I think it is a bit over the top when you guys are discussing loopholes to accuse Joey of being a cheater.

I did no such thing. Also, it is HE asserting it is a loophole. I'm saying that it has existed as long as the Edition, and is therefore an intended part of the system.

You said this:

Don't be surprised when I stand at your shoulder to ensure you don't steal distance when standing the models up again.

Suggesting you need to watch him do things to ensure he doesn't cheat, is implying he is a cheater.

I wish you'd stop 'forgetting' the inverted commas on the word 'loophole' since you have no proof it isn't a desired part of the game.

You can rest assured that neither ItsPug or myself would play you outside a tournament game, if I may be so bold as to speak for him. If you wish to GtG every turn that would work perfectly fine by me, personally I require a Movement Phase, it being the most important and whatever.

Also, if it were actually fine by you that people play this way, I doubt you'd have commented so many times on it, or indeed with such venom.

Elessar wrote:


keithb wrote:
Elessar, I think it is a bit over the top when you guys are discussing loopholes to accuse Joey of being a cheater.

I did no such thing. Also, it is HE asserting it is a loophole. I'm saying that it has existed as long as the Edition, and is therefore an intended part of the system.


You said this:

Don't be surprised when I stand at your shoulder to ensure you don't steal distance when standing the models up again.


Suggesting you need to watch him do things to ensure he doesn't cheat, is implying he is a cheater.

Saying I wouldn't trust him enough to not take advantage is not the same as saying he WOULD take advantage.

I think the subtleties of the English language are passing over you here.

To reiterate - saying I would deny him the (easy) opportunity to cheat is not the same as saying he would do so if not prevented.

Anyone who forces someone to play by something other than the rules through passive-aggression or having a 'dominant' personality and a strong opinion, however, is in fact cheating. So, if he played someone he'd never met and told them during their Scout move that he'd pack up and walk off if they tried this maneuver, (which I'm not saying he would do...) then that WOULD be cheating. Bullying the opponent into doing things your way is cheating.

So, if anyone reading this would behave that way, I'm calling THEM a cheater. And a jerk.

keithb wrote:

Elessar wrote:

keithb wrote:Elessar, I think it is a bit over the top when you guys are discussing loopholes to accuse Joey of being a cheater.

I did no such thing. Also, it is HE asserting it is a loophole. I'm saying that it has existed as long as the Edition, and is therefore an intended part of the system.

You said this:

Don't be surprised when I stand at your shoulder to ensure you don't steal distance when standing the models up again.

Suggesting you need to watch him do things to ensure he doesn't cheat, is implying he is a cheater.

Someone trying to pop smoke and shoot in the same turn, is suggesting that *I* am a cheater.
And people say dakka has no sense of irony

Joey wrote:You've completely ignored what I said and simply re-iterated the loophole.
If you want to play the game like that, then that's fine. Just don't expect other people to be cool with it, and if you used it on me I'd start puling out every single gamey technically legal trick I had in order to piss you off including, as I said above, laying down units to deny line of sight.

I ignored what you said as most of it was either a personal attack stating that because I did not agree with your interpretation of the intent of the author I lacked reading comprehension skills, or an argument as to the intent of an author you have, in all likelyhood, never met, spoken to or had knowledge of. I responded by showing that I had both read and comprehended the rule as it is written, and because the question is "Is this a legal action according to the rules" to which the answer is "Yes".

I ignored your inferrence of intent as its a fallacy to state you know what was in the author's head when he wrote it. I would also point out, and have done so before, that there is another rule worded in exactly the same way, which has been in the 5th edition rulebook since its very first printing, and despite numerous Erratas and FAQ's since its printing, this rule has not been changed. surely that gives the implication that the rule works exactly as intended, especially since we have another similiar rule (flat out) that does not work in this way.

And to your final point, yes I do wish to play the game by the rules, I would assume most other people do as well. if you don't wish to play by the rules then thats fine too, but you should reach an agreement with your opponent before the game as to which other rules you intend to ignore.

Oh and if you intended to lay down you models to deny LOS I would ask you to point out where it tells you you can stand them back up again when your finished. here's a clue it doesn't so I hope you can draw LOS from the ground too.

Scout moves aren't in ANY turn.

I'm not suggesting you cheat.

Suggesting you can't understand what you read, however...

ItsPug wrote:

Joey wrote:You've completely ignored what I said and simply re-iterated the loophole.
If you want to play the game like that, then that's fine. Just don't expect other people to be cool with it, and if you used it on me I'd start puling out every single gamey technically legal trick I had in order to piss you off including, as I said above, laying down units to deny line of sight.

I ignored what you said as most of it was either a personal attack stating that because I did not agree with your interpretation of the intent of the author I lacked reading comprehension skills, or an argument as to the intent of an author you have, in all likelyhood, never met, spoken to or had knowledge of. I responded by showing that I had both read and comprehended the rule as it is written, and because the question is "Is this a legal action according to the rules" to which the answer is "Yes".

I ignored your inferrence of intent as its a fallacy to state you know what was in the author's head when he wrote it. I would also point out, and have done so before, that there is another rule worded in exactly the same way, which has been in the 5th edition rulebook since its very first printing, and despite numerous Erratas and FAQ's since its printing, this rule has not been changed. surely that gives the implication that the rule works exactly as intended, especially since we have another similiar rule (flat out) that does not work in this way.

And to your final point, yes I do wish to play the game by the rules, I would assume most other people do as well. if you don't wish to play by the rules then thats fine too, but you should reach an agreement with your opponent before the game as to which other rules you intend to ignore.

Oh and if you intended to lay down you models to deny LOS I would ask you to point out where it tells you you can stand them back up again when your finished. here's a clue it doesn't so I hope you can draw LOS from the ground too.

Again, good luck finding opponants with your smoke popping vehicles that you still intend to shoot.
I'm outa here.

Good luck in finding opponents with your passive-aggressive 'play it my way' attitude!

Hopefully when 6th rolls around you'll decide the rules are more to your liking and won't have to ignore so many.

Pug - you up for a game in 2 weeks or so?

Elessar wrote:Except, if it were the intent of the designers, they'd have corrected it in the last four years. They haven't.

Considering it has never seen widespread abuse until recently, and how notoriously slow/bad GW is at correcting rules, this is a false assumption.

This is the same company that doggedly stated "deal with 3 different rules for stormshields, two different sets of rules for assault cannons, three different sets of rules for PotMS, etc" for over two years before deciding to fix that for their largest armies, and which still hasn't removed restrictions on a couple older armies that relate to previous edition rules that no longer exist (e.g. Black Templars still having to test for target priority even though the rule is gone)

Elessar wrote:Good luck in finding opponents with your passive-aggressive 'play it my way' attitude!

trying to use loopholes that most people have never heard of and would assume is not the way it's intended to be played without the most strict RAW interpretation is likely to lose you a lot of opponents as well.

Depends on your definition of widespread I suppose.

Where were other Assault Cannon rules? Was there a separate profile in BTs?

Elessar wrote:You know as well as I most of those question are easy to answer. Most people are idiots, there's no reason why most tabletop gamers would be different in that regard, and they aren't.

Sure, the FAQs also create new questions, but the game could be a whole hell of a lot worse. Imagine they never bothered with FAQs, just erratas, for instance.

Here are a couple of rhetorical questions:

1) Have you ever actually printed out all the faq/errata material for 40k from gw's site? it's the size of a small telephone book. Easy to answer?

2) Have you ever read the inat faq? And that's something most 'major' TO's go by!

Imagine if they (meaning gw) actually wrote some halfway decent rules that didn't require dicing off to determine who's interpretation is correct? I can point out numerous game systems that have managed to achieve this (in miniature gaming systems) and they don't have the benefit of 5 editions and 25 YEARS of feedback/play test.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:You've completely ignored what I said and simply re-iterated the loophole.
If you want to play the game like that, then that's fine. Just don't expect other people to be cool with it, and if you used it on me I'd start puling out every single gamey technically legal trick I had in order to piss you off including, as I said above, laying down units to deny line of sight.

Well, if you want to start another thread about the RAW of laying down models...please, go right ahead.

You keep arguing 'ethics'. This is you make da call. It's about RAW. I'm not sure any longer about who has problems with reading comprehension at this point...

Elessar wrote:Depends on your definition of widespread I suppose.

I've never heard of it until recent weeks, and I've been playing at tournaments and running events all through 5E. Never seen anyone try and pull it until recently.

Where were other Assault Cannon rules?

The old Daemonunters codex, 3 shots only, no Rending, same as all assault cannons until 4E, GW just never updated it for the 3E DH book. Likewise stormshield rules, in 3E it was a 4+ in CC only against 1 opponent. In the 4E books it was changed to just a flat 4+ in CC, in 5E books it was 3++ against everything, so until mid 2010 or so IIRC all of these rules existed simultaneously.

Was there a separate profile in BTs?

It has the same references as it does for dedicated transports (basically just re-iterating the rule from the rulebook at the time as pretty much all the books of that era did), hence why BT's can't use each others dedicated transports either.

I didn't think it was in BTs, never thought of DH tbh. Thanks.

I can remember encountering this tactic as far back as about 3 years ago, give or take a few months. I suppose calling it common would be quite a stretch though.

@Elessar, you cannot get cover saves from a Flamestorm

@Pug et Elessar et al, lets look at the FAQ1.5 wording again as people keep referring back to the rulebook which had an ambiguity that has been fixed.

Hope it's okay to quote sentences direct so apologies to the mods if not.

FAQ1.5 Page 7 the question states "During the first Turn of the game does a Scout move count ..." so this part of the FAQ clearly makes the Scout move part of the first turn (nothing ambiguous there) and then it continues to explain in the question "... does a Scout move count as the preceding Movement phase when working out any saves ... " and here they explain how to plug it in to the game turn sequence, it counts as an extra preceding movement phase for Turn 1 which has already been clarified, thus deciding what happens to the unit in subsequent 1st Turn phases. All of this happens in Turn 1 as stated in the question. They affirm all of this by answering YES to their own question. This brings us back to the rulebook piece that they felt needed no clarification in that Smoke Launchers prohibit you from shooting in the same turn that you have used them.

Elessar wrote:I didn't think it was in BTs, never thought of DH tbh. Thanks.

Having armies stretch over 3 different editions will have that effect

Quick addition. Nowhere in the Scout rules does it say before the game starts for Scout moves!
What the Scout USR says is "before the first player begins his first turn" (SRB P76), which is an extra activity courtesy of the Scout rule in Turn 1 before the player who won the roll to go first actually does anything that turn. Rules do not state anywhere that there is a prior turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BT FAQ 1.1 fixed the Shields and the Dedicated Transport Vehicles usage issues, POTMS almost (poor old Drop Pods) but we did lose the magic smoke launchers however all this ensures that BTs do indeed rock in V5 :-)

pucadubh wrote:@Elessar, you cannot get cover saves from a Flamestorm

@Pug et Elessar et al, lets look at the FAQ1.5 wording again as people keep referring back to the rulebook which had an ambiguity that has been fixed.

Hope it's okay to quote sentences direct so apologies to the mods if not.

FAQ1.5 Page 7 the question states "During the first Turn of the game does a Scout move count ..." so this part of the FAQ clearly makes the Scout move part of the first turn (nothing ambiguous there) and then it continues to explain in the question "... does a Scout move count as the preceding Movement phase when working out any saves ... " and here they explain how to plug it in to the game turn sequence, it counts as an extra preceding movement phase for Turn 1 which has already been clarified, thus deciding what happens to the unit in subsequent 1st Turn phases. All of this happens in Turn 1 as stated in the question. They affirm all of this by answering YES to their own question. This brings us back to the rulebook piece that they felt needed no clarification in that Smoke Launchers prohibit you from shooting in the same turn that you have used them.

Aaaaand /thread.

pucadubh wrote:@Elessar, you cannot get cover saves from a Flamestorm

@Pug et Elessar et al, lets look at the FAQ1.5 wording again as people keep referring back to the rulebook which had an ambiguity that has been fixed.

Hope it's okay to quote sentences direct so apologies to the mods if not.

FAQ1.5 Page 7 the question states "During the first Turn of the game does a Scout move count ..." so this part of the FAQ clearly makes the Scout move part of the first turn (nothing ambiguous there) and then it continues to explain in the question "... does a Scout move count as the preceding Movement phase when working out any saves ... " and here they explain how to plug it in to the game turn sequence, it counts as an extra preceding movement phase for Turn 1 which has already been clarified, thus deciding what happens to the unit in subsequent 1st Turn phases. All of this happens in Turn 1 as stated in the question. They affirm all of this by answering YES to their own question. This brings us back to the rulebook piece that they felt needed no clarification in that Smoke Launchers prohibit you from shooting in the same turn that you have used them.

John, its not stating that the scout move is a part of the first turn. It states...

Q: During the first turn of the game does a Scout move count as the preceding Movement phase when working out any saves from shooting, for example the 3+ cover
save from turbo-boosting, and the to hit rolls in combat against vehicles? (p76)
A: Yes.

It states that if you make a scout move it counts as a movement phase for determining flat out saves and what a vehicle is hit on in CC. These are the only two events which reference the preceding movement phase. It was to stop the argument that the valkyrie moves 24" in a scout move, your opponent (having turn 1a) charges it and states he hits automatically because you haven't had a movement phase yet, so count as stationary. The bit about "during the first turn" is because it is on about shooting or CC attacks, which can only happen once the game has actually started. Scout moves happen before "the first player begins his first turn" which is the start of the game (pg 92 and 93)

Edit:

To make it easier to understand John.

Imagine this scenario. Its Me Vs You, My Airborne IG versus your (IDK) space marines, at a time when the IG codex first came out (and before the FAQ question and answer was released). You have first turn and, before the game begins but after deploying infiltrators, I make my scout moves. I move 24" (flat out) in a direction (doesn't matter which). You then start your turn, do you moves etc. Then you fire your rifle dread at my valkyrie, score 4 hits and 2 pens. I say, "I have a coversave for moving flat out". You say " that only counts if you move flat out in your preceding movement phase, as you haven't had a movement phase yet you cannot get a coversave" By RAW you are completely correct. The FAQ was to state that in your first turn, I do infact get a coversave for moving flat out during a scout move as it counts as a preceding movement phase, which it does admirably. It was not to make a scout move count part of the first turn, which it actually doesn't do.

I still maintain that as it is the start of the game it must be Turn 1 and the way I read FAQ 1.5 thats what it says. Chris you read the words and interpret something different. I think the counts as the preceding movement phase and not turn means smoke launchers work and shooting doesn't. You clearly don't.
The joys of the English langauge and the greys of the 5th Ed ruleset after all this time.

As TO I have a custom of inviting such questions pertaining to rules specific to their play or armies in advance of the competition itself so that I have time to make an informed judgement without the need to be hasty. I recommend that anyone who plans to try this tactic/interpretation (no rants please, there are clearly two opposing interpretations of the same physical words on virtual paper ) should proffer the question in advance of the tourney to their TO as I find I err on the side of caution when faced with unexpected rules queries that I know should have been brought up in advance.

I still disagree with the interpretation that the title of the thread is allowed as per my personal opinion having read and reread the words concerned but can see why the debate exists nonetheless. For those who plan to come to my 2 upcoming tourneys (hopefully the second will have clarity thanks to 6th Ed lol), please don't try this!

My final words on the subject,
I play BAs too, would never use this tactic and feel if that's what it takes to win with BAs then you need more practice with a very good dex


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hiya Chris, I had said my last words on the thread as it is going nowhere but your edit came up after I posted and I couldn't be rude to you. I do agree with your example but I still feel there are 2 ways to read that sentence I highlighted after our discussions. I also feel that the January editions of FAQs tried (but clearly failed or failed to be clear at least) to make it a tactical decision to smoke or shoot (even to IDK Marines with POTMS). I stand by my last post mate and know we can at least agree to disagree

pucadubh wrote:I still maintain that as it is the start of the game it must be Turn 1 and the way I read FAQ 1.5 thats what it says. Chris you read the words and interpret something different. I think the counts as the preceding movement phase and not turn means smoke launchers work and shooting doesn't. You clearly don't.

Pitched Battle Deployment pg 92 BRB wrote:
deploy infiltrators and make scout moves.
Start the game! once deployment has finished the player that chose his deployment zone first starts game Turn 1 with his first player turn"

Scouts USR pg 76 BRB wrote:
after both sides have deployed (including infiltrators), but before the first player begins his first turn

The FAQ is not making the Scout move part of the first turn, according to the rules they are done during deployment before the start of the game, and nothing in the FAQ question changes this status. In fact to do so would require an Errata of the Scouts USR stating that it happens after the start of the game, but that would mean that you would need another Errata to fix the deployment options as they state Scout moves occur before the game starts as well. and it is important to note that these would be erratas and not FAQs as they are changing the actual wording of the rules, not just how you should interpret them. Then you have the issue of if it happens during turn 1, how far can the scouting unit move? does it happen in its own special part of the first turn? before or after rolling to seize? etc That'd be even messier that we have it now, and certainly not clearer.

The FAQ in question deals solely with cover saves against shooting attacks and close combat attacks against scouting vehicles during the first turn, because both of these rules require you to determine how fast the vehicle moved in its preceding movement phase. It states that during the first turn of the game (ie player turn 1A, (note that it doesn't say game turn)) player B's forces may gain a cover save if they were (for example) a vehicle that moved flat out during the scout move as they may count this scout move as the "preceding movement phase" which is a requirement to obtain a cover save for moving flat out. If it were not for this FAQ, they would not be able to obtain this coversave (and would also be hit automatically in CC).

Edit:
Bah, John you have to add a bit in at the end. Well ok, I did it first, and I also cannot be rude. I think the RAW is clear that you can do it, and as I mentioned above, I don't think that the FAQ is saying what you think it is. TBH its not that big of a deal, most units should be able to get into a position to both fire and get cover, especially with what amounts to 2 movement phases. Would I play it this way? usually no. against Jan? damn right, us bunnies need all the help we can get lol

It doesn't make it part of Turn One - that's all that matters. If it DID, you couldn't Scout move, then move again.

Okay everyone, what I think we should all do is calm down and.....feth it, APPEAL TO RIDICULOUS FALLACY!!!

Elessar wrote:It doesn't make it part of Turn One - that's all that matters. If it DID, you couldn't Scout move, then move again.

That fallacy has already been debunked. The movement phase allowance to move (oddly enough) doesnt make any reference to how far you have already moved that turn.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Elessar wrote:It doesn't make it part of Turn One - that's all that matters. If it DID, you couldn't Scout move, then move again.

That fallacy has already been debunked. The movement phase allowance to move (oddly enough) doesnt make any reference to how far you have already moved that turn.

Yes, but you haven't managed to debunk any of the other issues regarding it:
I reiterate my case:
There are only two options. Scout move either count as being done in Turn 1 or it doesn't count as being done in Turn 1:
1) Scout move is considered to have been done on Player Turn 1 for all purposes. This means "Scout move counts as preceding movement phase" is interpreted as"Scout move counts as Turn 1 Movement phase".
2) Scout move is NOT considered to have been done on Player Turn 1. Instead, Scout move counts as movement phase preceding Player Turn 1, effectively working as if they had been done on Turn 0, with Turn 0 having no other phases.

Option 1 is required if one wants to argue that Smoke Launchers used during Scout move give any penalties, as the penalties only apply during same turn.
Ramifications of option 1:
1) If player 1 has non-fast vehicle move cruising speed during Scout move, that vehicle cannot fire weapons during shooting phase ."The number of weapons a vehicle can fire in the Shooting phase depends on how fast it has moved in that turn's Movement phase, as detailed below." "Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire" (Brb, pg 58). May not shoot trumps may shoot.
2) If player 1 has skimmer go flat out during scout move and then moves combat speed on Turn 1 movement phase, skimmer is destroyed if it is immobilised in next enemy shooting phase as "it moved flat out in its last turn" (Brb, pg 71)
3) If player 1 has bikes turbo-boost during Scout move, they're subject to all Turbo-boost penalties during Turn 1 even if they stay still during Turn 1 movement phase. "they cannot move through difficult terrain. shoot, launch assaults or execute any other voluntary action in the same turn" (Brb, pg 76)

Option 2 means that there is no downside using Smoke Launchers during Scout move. Note that same applies for Turbo-boosting scout moves for bikes, they get 3+ cover for next enemy shooting phase without suffering from any penalties.

I do agree that one can argue that the "preceding" in FAQ could be interpreted to mean Player Turn 1 movement phase during Turn 1 shooting phase and after, but it is contrived interpretation.
Interpreting "counts as preceding Movement phase" to mean "counts as Movement phase preceding first turn" on other hand is far more internally consistent view and doesn't cause issues with other rules.

I'm not sure what my opinion is on this yet. But one thing I was thinking of is that if you're going to be very explicit about RAW, then it says smoke launchers can be used "once per game".

"Deploy any infiltrators and make any scout moves. Start the game! Once deployment has finished, the player that chose his deployment zone first starts game Turn 1 with his first player turn." (Brb pg 92, Pitched battle)

So if you do your scout move before starting the game, then how can you use a once-per-game ability before the game starts? This is being very RAW of course.

Nivek5150 wrote:I'm not sure what my opinion is on this yet. But one thing I was thinking of is that if you're going to be very explicit about RAW, then it says smoke launchers can be used "once per game".

"Deploy any infiltrators and make any scout moves. Start the game! Once deployment has finished, the player that chose his deployment zone first starts game Turn 1 with his first player turn." (Brb pg 92, Pitched battle)

So if you do your scout move before starting the game, then how can you use a once-per-game ability before the game starts? This is being very RAW of course.

I guess if you don't think deployment is 'part of the game', then you have a point. I consider deployment part of the game.

I do too, but I don't think it's so far-fetched to consider it set-up and not part of the game itself.

Nivek5150 wrote:So if you do your scout move before starting the game, then how can you use a once-per-game ability before the game starts? This is being very RAW of course.

FAQ explicitly allows using Smoke launchers during scout move.
So funnily enough, your question should be "As scout move is done before game starts, shouldn't Baal Predator should be able to use Smoke Launchers also during normal turns?".
It is very weak argument though, with the FAQ about Scout move counting as a movement phase. I doubt that no-one argues movement phase is not part of the game...

Not gonna lie, I like the idea of Baal Predators getting a second Smoke use...but it'd be stupid.